SEXUAL HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS A legal and ... - The ICHRP
SEXUAL HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS A legal and ... - The ICHRP
SEXUAL HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS A legal and ... - The ICHRP
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
nullification of discriminatory laws against sexual minorities <strong>and</strong> the introduction of<br />
protective legislation 60 . Nepal’s Country Code, a comprehensive legislation that includes<br />
criminal law provisions, explicitly criminalizes bestiality but also ambiguously punishes<br />
‘unnatural’ sexual intercourse 61 . Nepal also has a system of citizenship wherein on the age of<br />
attaining majority any male or female in Nepal who satisfies certain domiciliary <strong>and</strong> ethnic<br />
conditions can apply <strong>and</strong> obtain a citizenship card. This card provides several entitlements<br />
including ration, passport, public employment opportunities, <strong>and</strong> residential rights. However,<br />
since the law permits persons to register only as male or female, metis, transgendered persons<br />
in Nepal, are effectively left out of such basic citizenship entitlements. <strong>The</strong> petitioner sought<br />
an order from the court which recognized the fundamental right to equality for metis so that<br />
they may obtain citizenship rights. <strong>The</strong> petitioner argued that transgendered persons are<br />
human beings too who should be recognized as such <strong>and</strong> have access to all rights entitled to<br />
males or females. <strong>The</strong> Supreme Court issued a “show cause” notice to the defendants, the<br />
Nepal government, Prime Minister <strong>and</strong> Council of Ministers, the Ministry of Law & Justice<br />
<strong>and</strong> the Parliament Secretariat. All the defendants responded by raising one main argument:<br />
that there was no need for special <strong>legal</strong> protection of the petitioners since the Interim<br />
Constitution guaranteed the right to non-discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, caste,<br />
origin, race, language or belief within which the petitioner’s rights were protected as such.<br />
<strong>The</strong> court relied considerably on international judicial <strong>and</strong> legislative developments related to<br />
the rights of sexual minorities while passing judgment. It also based its reasoning on<br />
comparative constitutional <strong>and</strong> <strong>legal</strong> provisions recognizing persons of a third gender,<br />
scientific evidence about the immutability of sexual orientation, <strong>and</strong> academic articles on the<br />
issue of sexual orientation. <strong>The</strong> judgment is unclear regarding the distinction between sexual<br />
orientation <strong>and</strong> gender identity. It relied on definitions <strong>and</strong> articulations provided in several<br />
documents, including the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human<br />
Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation <strong>and</strong> Gender Identity. It also described<br />
observations of the High Court of the UK <strong>and</strong> the Australian Family Court regarding gender<br />
identity, the European Court of Human Rights in relation to transexuality <strong>and</strong> the South<br />
African Constitutional Court in relation to sexual orientation in the case of <strong>The</strong> National<br />
Coalition for Gay & Lesbian Equality & Others v Minister of Justice & Others. Traversing<br />
case law of the US Supreme Court (Lawrence v Texas) <strong>and</strong> the Constitutional Court of<br />
Ecuador, the Court observed:<br />
“… it seems that the traditional norms <strong>and</strong> values in regards to the sex, sexuality,<br />
sexual orientation <strong>and</strong> gender identity have been changing gradually. It also<br />
seems that the concept specifying that the gender identity should be determined<br />
60 Unlike some other jurisdictions where courts do not have the authority to direct the legislature to enact<br />
legislation, in Nepal the Supreme Court exercises such authority, <strong>and</strong> has done so in the past, such as in a case<br />
related to enforced disappearances in July 2007. It is unclear where such authority emanates from – the authors<br />
were unable to locate constitutional source for this exercise of power by the Nepal Supreme Court.<br />
61 Part 4, Chapter 16 of Nepal’s Country Code states: “Sex with animals<br />
No 1: No one may penetrate an animal or make an animal penetrate him/her or may do or make another person<br />
do any kind of unnatural sex.<br />
No 2: If someone penetrates a cow among female animals one may be sentenced to two years jail <strong>and</strong> if not the<br />
cow then one year jail or 500 Nrs fine.<br />
No 3: If a woman makes an animal penetrate her, she may be sentenced to one-year jail or 500 Nrs fine.<br />
No 4: In this chapter, not mentioned in other sections, anyone who does or makes someone practice unnatural<br />
sex may be sentenced to one-year jail or 5000 Nrs fine.<br />
No 5: All the cases related to the law written in this chapter need to be reported within one year of the act taking<br />
place.”<br />
22